 Ddym ni'n gweld i'r budget. It is the debate on motion 10518, in the name of Derek Mackay, on stage 3 of the budget. As members will be aware, at this stage in the proceedings, I am required to give a determination as to whether or not any provision in this bill relates to a protected subject matter. In other words, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of this bill, in my fellywn i ni gyd yn y gwasanaeth y budget y gallwn i gyd yn syrfaeth y fath.入yr y乎f y bwyd yn i gyd yw bod rwy'r uzi Thomas Mac eleisiadiaeth yn gynhyrch arall. A fyddwn i gyd, ac rwy'n gynhyrch ar gyfer y munloedd, Cymru, Dr McLey, yn myth o ffacil fydd mewn gweithio i gyd. Mae gennym ni'n gweithio i mi ac rwy'n gweithio i'r cychwyn nhw i gyd. Gweithio i'n gweithio i'r gweithi bwyd yn 2018-19, a phasig hwn i'n gwneud i'r ac yn ddweud datblygu i gael cymainthaf cymaintau cwestiwr ar gyfer fynd i gael. I ao ddweud i ddweud i gael cymtiau cymaintau cymaint yn gweithio'r cwestiwr cymaintau cymaintau yn oesir i ddechrau'r pryd i外grif, aol i gefnogaeth ar gyfer ddweud cymaint gwirionedd yn gyf lystau ar gyfer fynd i gyfainthaf cymainthaf cymainthaf cymainthaf cymainthaf cymainthaf cefnod. Mae'n blaen o'r bwysig o'i cymainthaf cymainthaf gyfringol i'w ddechrau'r cymainthaf rongent i dda i ni, a chyfyddemu ei gynllen FanCH, a i ddwybiadau sefydliadau fel wavefyddau, a i dda i'n meddwl unigiau gwadog. The bill before us seeks Parliament's approval for over £1.2 billion of additional expenditure to build a fairer, more prosperous country and put the progressive values of this Government into action. It is a bill that reflects our status as a Parliament of minorities. James Kelly? I thank the cabinet secretary for taking the intervention. Does the cabinet secretary think that it is progressive that MSPs, as a result of this budget, will only pay an additional £29 a week in tax? James Kelly is just simply wrong. What the budget proposes to do is to raise taxation in a fair and proportionate way, which will deliver hundreds of millions of pounds more for the public services of Scotland. In the next financial year, the tax decisions that we have taken over the last two years and the adjustments that have been made post-block grant adjustment amount to over £400 million additional resources for Scotland's public services, surely the Labour Party at this 11th hour can welcome that investment in Scotland's public services. That is a bill in which I have had to reach out to find consensus in the Parliament and to be able to compromise as well. It is necessary to reach the agreement on the package of measures that will boost the economy and support our public services. We have worked very hard to secure the passage of that bill in order to deliver on our commitments that protect Scotland's much-valued social contract. I once again thank those who have engaged constructively in those discussions. The most successful economies in Europe are built upon the firm foundation of strong public services and inclusive societies. Equally, those foundations require a strong economy to generate the necessary resources to fund them. The Scott, I will. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. On the basis of requiring those strong foundations, can the cabinet secretary explain why 28,000 jobs have been taken out of local government in the last few years under his government? The scaremongering of the Labour Party as it relates to local government continues in that what this budget proposes to do is to give a real-terms increase to local government in the next financial year. It will also have the ability to raise the council tax. The difficulty for the Labour Party is that, tonight, in voting with the Tories—I suspect—it will vote against that extra money to local government and vote against that extra £1.2 billion to Scotland's public services. That is the reality of what the Labour Party will do this evening. I would like to make some more progress. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has highlighted some economic challenges around Brexit uncertainty and the declining working age population. However, it is important to recognise that Scotland's economic performance has remained resilient. It is encouraging that the latest Bank of Scotland PMI reported that business optimism in Scotland is at a three-year high, but we will not be complacent and we will build on those strong fundamentals through the measures in this bill to stimulate economic activity and improve productivity. Dean Lockhart, thank you very much. The finance secretary talks about the resilience of the Scottish economy. Does he agree with the analysis of the Fraser Valander that Scotland's economy is facing the longest periods of weak economic growth for 60 years? The Tories cannot abdicate their responsibility for macroeconomic policy in Scotland, but what this Government will do in supporting this budget will invest almost £2.4 billion in enterprise and skills through higher and further education and our enterprise agencies. We will give a 64 per cent increase in the economy jobs and fair work portfolio. We will allocate £18 million for the new national manufacturing institute and £10 million for the new south of Scotland development agency and we will double to £122 million funding allocated to the city region deals. This Government is investing in economic growth in the teeth of Tory cuts and Tory opposition. On business rates, we will offer the most attractive package of non-domestic rates release anywhere in the UK, amounting to now over £720 million and, of course, the UK's first nursery relief to support our childcare policies. Our growth accelerator will encourage business to invest in their premises to drive improvements in productivity and we have delivered on the business community's number one ask, which was to cap an annual uplift in business rates at CPI rather than RPI. Today's bill invests £1.2 billion in our transport system, turning the A9, into an electric highway and delivering new railway investments such as electric trains between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Willie Rennie. Before the minister gets too current to be about the state of the Scottish economy, will he comment on the rise in unemployment today by 14,000 people? Is he complacent about that? Cabinet Secretary. It is lower than it was last year and all the more reason to support this budget to invest in the economy, in skills, in productivity, in R&D, in innovation and all those areas. I can confirm that Transport Scotland has now developed specific proposals on how the pre-pipeline fund for new rail projects will work and be governed and will publish full details over the coming weeks. As I confirmed at stage 1 between 2017-18 and 2018-19, the proportion of the Scottish Government capital budget spent on low-carbon has increased from 21 to 29 per cent and the proportion of our capital budget that is spent on low-carbon projects will continue to increase in future years. To further support our transition to a low-carbon economy, this budget invests £146 million in energy efficiency and heat decarbonisation, including real-terms protection for the home energy efficiency programme. It also allocates £60 million for a low-carbon innovation fund, £20 million to support the transition to electric vehicles and support more green buses and doubles investment in active and sustainable travel. The budget delivers £756 million of investment in affordable housing and £10 million towards an ending homelessness together fund as part of our commitment to eradicate rough sleeping and to transform the use of temporary accommodation. Those investments will help to ensure that our future growth will be inclusive and sustainable. Right now, in infrastructure and support for business needs to be complemented by investment in our people and our services and our communities. Education is this Government's number one priority and this is backed by above-inflation investment in our universities, colleges and local government. £243 million to support the expansion of publicly funded early learning and childcare entitlement, £120 million allocated directly to headteachers through the pupil equity fund and a further £59 million to provide targeted support to children and young people in the greatest need. We are also providing the first investment of a new £50 million tackling child poverty fund that will help to address the underlying social and economic causes of poverty. Yesterday, I laid the local government finance order, which includes the additional £170 million announced following the constructive discussions with the Scottish Green Party at stage 1. That delivers an above-inflation investment in local government for local revenue services and adds to the real-terms increase in capital support. That has been welcomed by COSLA and I note that, so far, 11 councils have exercised the flexibility that they have to increase their council tax levels by up to 3 per cent. If the remaining councils follow suit, that will be worth around a further £77 million to support local services next year. I also had the opportunity yesterday to see a prime example of support for our NHS when I went to leaf surgery. I saw at first hand how the additional funding provided by the budget delivers for our core public services. That bill will see an extra £400 million increase in health resource funding and take our total front-line investment in the NHS to more than £13 billion. We will invest £110 million in reform of primary care, supporting our general practitioners and health centres to meet the changing needs of our people. We will increase our direct investment in mental health services, child and adolescent mental health services, in particular by a further £17 million. That is the third annual increase in a row, which will help to deliver an additional 800 mental health workers over the session of Parliament. Jenny Maron Thank the cabinet secretary give way. If he is committed to improving children's health, is he minded to drop the regressive sports tax from his budget today? Is cash grab that condemns communities to crumbling sports facilities for generations to come? John Swinney I certainly will not follow Labour's chaotic and damaging tax plans, which would result in less resource than they have claimed. In terms of non-domestic rates, I have not followed the Barclay recommendations and I have supported the project in Dundee. Surely Jenny Maron would have welcomed that in terms of my decision. In supporting the NHS, the Government also continues to support free personal care and a roll-out of Frank's law by April 2019. This budget is about investing in a fairer Scotland. Yes, there is divergence from the UK. Our investments mean that students do not pay tuition fees. Those who are ill do not pay prescription charges. Our citizens are not vulnerable to the bedroom tax. I am proud to represent the only Government in the UK to lift the public sector pay cap and offer a real pay rise to public sector staff. We will offer the most attractive system of business rates. We will invest in social rented housing, delivering at more than double the rate in England, and we will provide above inflation investment in local government, police and the NHS. That is the best deal anywhere in the UK, and that is why a recent UGov poll showed that the Scottish public supports our proportionate approach. When it comes to decision time, I would invite members of Parliament to support a budget that sees Scotland not only being the fairest tax part of the UK but for a majority of taxpayers the lowest tax part of the UK, a budget that reverses the real terms cut that Westminster has imposed on our resource budget and delivers £1.2 billion of additional investment in public services and the economy, a budget that protects our students, a budget that protects our elderly in need of care, a budget that protects council services, a budget that protects our police services and invests in the national health service. That budget delivers the best deal for taxpayers in the whole of the UK, a budget that protects all that we hold dear, while investing in our nation's future and that makes the use of the powers of this Parliament to put progressive values of this Government into action. I commend it to the chamber. I would urge all members who wish to speak this debate to press their request to see burdens now. I call on Murdoff Razor to open for the Conservative Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Another day, another budget debate. Sadly, the narrative from the SNP Government remains exactly what it was yesterday and for weeks before. This is a pay more, get less budget. A budget prepared against the backdrop of the UK block grant to Scotland increasing from this year to the next, a fact confirmed by SPICE, confirmed by the Fraser of Alunod Institute and a fact that has been accepted by the finance secretary himself. As we heard again yesterday, it is a budget that breaks a promise that the SNP made in their manifesto in 2016 not to increase the basic rate of income tax, as a consequence of which over 1 million Scots will be paying more tax than the equivalent workers south of the border sending out a message that Scotland is the highest tax part of the United Kingdom. While taxes are going up, services are being cut. Across Scotland this week, local authorities are meeting to set their budgets. On the warnings from COSLA are clear that, despite the additional money that has been found by the Scottish Government as a result of their deal with the Greens, councils are still having to make savings. Whether it is reducing the number of teachers, cutting classroom assistance, scrapping school crossing patrollers, closing recycling centres or libraries all across the country, people's experience is that they are getting poorer quality public services while, at the same time, they are being asked to pay more in taxation. The budget delivers pay increases for public sector workers. Those employed by the Scottish Government and its agencies and the NHS will all benefit, but there is nothing in the budget to deliver higher salaries for local authority workers, who no doubt will have a similar expectation to those elsewhere in the public sector. However, if those sort of pay settlements are to be made, they can only be made by local authorities cutting services elsewhere. Even a local authority maximising its council tax increase at 3 per cent will not raise enough money to pay the level of increases to staff that are being applied elsewhere in the public sector. That is the point that is made by Councillor Gail MacGregor, COSLA's resources spokesman. I know that the finance secretary knows Councillor MacGregor. He was all over Twitter last night, pictured and cavorting with Councillor MacGregor at a Glitsie Scotland Excel event. However, what she said on Tuesday—I am sure that she would have repeated this to him when they were together last night—she said this because, quite simply, with no money in the settlement from the Scottish Government for pay, any pay rises for council workers can only come from cuts to services or council tax rises. I will be interested to hear from SNP speakers in this debate. If Mr Fitzpatrick likes to intervene in me, I am very happy to give way. He will just echo from his sedentary position. Oh, please, come on, come on. The Tories' tax plans would take £500 million out of the budget, plus she wants to find extra money for local government. What are you going to cut? The figure-miss factor needs to keep in his head. £16.5 billion is the cost of SNP failure to the Scottish economy. That is our failure for not growing our economy for the last 15 years at the same rate of the UK. If he grew the economy, he would have more money to spend, Mr Fitzpatrick. The cabinet secretary seems to be able to find money when he needs to, because, in order to do his deal with the Greens, to provide Patrick's pocket money, he found an extra £110 million from underspend and reserves. Of that £40 million is coming from reserves and £70 million from underspend. This is curious, because when the finance secretary came to the Finance and Constitution Committee on 15 January, I quizzed him about how much money was available in the budget in this area. The figure in the draft budget for budget exchange and reserve was stated at £158 million. The cabinet secretary said in response to me, and I quote, in the past, finance secretaries may have been able to hold on to that money for financial management reasons, for example. I have used the money up front for the purposes of budget negotiations. The figure is what it is because there is very tight financial management, and that is the figure that the officials think is most appropriate. When the budget bill was presented to Parliament on 31 January, 12 working days later, that figure of £158 million had gone up by £110 million, a 70 per cent increase in 12 working days. It is perfectly clear that the cabinet secretary had that money squirreled away to do his deal with the Greens, but he was not telling Parliament and was not telling its committees about it. There is a serious point here about our ability as a Parliament to conduct budget scrutiny. In a period of 12 working days, from giving evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee to presenting its budget bill, an additional £110 million was found. It is not unreasonable to suggest that this is money that the cabinet secretary knew perfectly well about when he came to the Finance and Constitution Committee. I have had members of that committee or other subject committees of this Parliament conducting budget scrutiny, being made aware of those additional resources. Much more meaningful discussions could have taken place about how the budget might have been improved, but the finance secretary chose not to disclose that. There is a serious point here. I think that we need a new approach in future. We need to be much clearer as a Parliament and as committees of this Parliament exactly how much money is in the budget. As we look at recommending the implementation of the budget review group, I hope that this is a question that can be addressed. To return to the key messages in this budget, what it does not do is to address the woeful situation that we now have in the Scottish economy. Today, we learnt that Scottish employment is now lower than the UK average. Economic activity in Scotland is higher than the UK average and unemployment is higher than the UK average. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has told us that its prediction that the SNP-run economy in Scotland will fail to match UK growth in each of the next five years. In 2018, it will grow at half the rate of the UK as a whole, and it is projected to have the lowest growth of any major economy in the next three years, the lowest in the EU, the lowest in the G20 and the lowest in the OECD. I thank the member for giving way. Would he accept that the London and South East economy is somewhat different from the rest of the UK, and in fact Scotland is very comparable with other English regions? That is not what the Fiscal Commission has been telling us. That is not what their figures would disclose. If you look at the productivity figures for Scotland, they would suggest that Scotland is among the poorest performing parts in the United Kingdom. However, Mr Mason, like too many SNP-backed benchers, wants to absolve the Scottish Government of any responsibility for the performance of the Scottish economy. They need to start taking responsibility for what is actually happening in Scotland. This is a budget that we should have put growing the economy first. It should have been a budget for growth. Instead, it is a budget for cuts in public services at higher taxes. As Sir Tom Hunter, one of Scotland's leading business figures, put it, the perception that if you are a talented person sitting in London, Manchester or Birmingham, and Scotland wants to attract you, you may think that Scotland is a high-tax economy. We should be listening to voices like Tom Hunter, listening to voices like Liz Cameron of the Chambers of Commerce, listening to the CBI, to the Federation of Small Business, to Scottish Engineering, to the Scottish Retail Consortium—all of those who have warned of the potential damage that will be done from having higher income tax rates. I am no fan of his politics or of his music, but even Morrissey got it right when he said of the First Minister, that those hands will be in enably's pockets. Residing officer, the SNP Government has chosen to ignore all those voices and have delivered us a budget that is bad for Scotland. That is why we should vote against it at decision time tonight. Hi, Colin. James Kelly is open for the Labour Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is a budget for chief executives in Morningside, not for communities, facing savage SNP cuts. It is a budget that fails the needs of Scotland's communities. Parents in Clackmannanshire will be dismayed to see a budget resulting in cuts to teachers in their schools. Parents of children living in poverty, struggling to pay energy bills, will not understand why MSPs see their tax bills barely increasing. Pensioners phoning their GPs today, unable to get appointments until next week, will not understand why SNP MSPs are cheering for Derek Mackay's budget. That budget fails on so many levels and should be voted down by Parliament tonight. If you look at one of the key areas of investment that are required, support for public services, the reality is that even after the changes announced following the grubby deal between Derek Mackay and the Greens, there still remains £386 million in local government funding. It is not just the numbers, it is the decisions that local councils are having to face. If you look at Murray Council, it is looking to have to reduce library assistance and close library services. In Clackmannanshire, the reduction of teaching posts and learning assistance, what does that do to help to educate our children? What does that do to help to build the skills in the economy? In South Lanarkshire Council, we propose increased charges for school meals and increased charges for care services. All of that at a time when the cabinet secretary announces a pay policy but does not provide adequate funding to fully fund that policy. At the start of the process, there was a £200 million shortfall in the amount of money that was required to fund the pay policy. As we have gone through, no new money comes through. The reality for that, particularly for local councils, is that they face the decision that, if they really want to fund fair pay, they need to cut services. Potentially, as we have seen in Clackmannanshire, they need to cut jobs in order to fund that pay. There is also the reality of the modern scandal of child poverty in Scotland, where 260,000 children live in poverty. Recently, there was a question at finance questions in relation to Ayrshire. It came up that, in Irvine West alone, 36 per cent of children are living in poverty. That is totally unacceptable, yet the SNP has rejected the proposals from Labour to increase child benefit and to alleviate the child poverty in words like Irvine West and throughout the country. Yesterday, we saw again in the NHS figures the drastic A and E performance figures as the NHS continues to struggle through this winter. In so many aspects, this budget is failed and is not fit for purpose. Part of the reason for that is also the debate that we had yesterday afternoon on tax. Ultimately, if you want to provide a budget that addresses all the issues across public services and funds fair pay and tackles child poverty, you need a tax regime that raises adequate amounts of money. I will give way to Kate Forbes. Kate Forbes? On raising revenue from very different sources, including a tourist tax and a land value tax, how much would either of those raise next year? James Kelly? They would raise £145 million in total as we detailed in a tax plan. The reality is that those on those benches do not have the political will to make the changes required. There are communities across this country that are facing savage cuts, saving the closure of facilities, facing the prospect of job losses, and yet the meager tax plans brought forward by Derek Mackay only raised £83 million. That shows the poverty of ambition from Cabinet Secretary Mackay and his colleagues. Look at the facts. SNP MSPs will only be paying £29 more tax a week. Chief executives on £150,000 will only pay £17 more a week. It is a complete failure to take on the gravity of the issues that we face. Time and time again, when it comes to an election campaign, the SNP posture has declared that it supports a £50 top rate of tax. However, when it comes to delivering in this chamber, when it comes to putting money on your mouth, it is eight times that you have voted against a £50 top rate of tax. You run away from taking the decisions that are required to meet the challenges that are faced in Scotland's communities. The reality is that we need bold and radical action in order to address the issues that we face in the country. If we really want to grow the economy, we do not grow the economy by cutting public services. We do not grow the economy by taking teachers and teaching posts out of schools. We do not grow the economy by undermining college budgets. We need to make that investment if we are going to see kids graduate in the STEM subjects and make that contribution to the skilled economy. We do not fail to make the joined-up thinking that is required. It is the same as true in relation to child benefit, because it is not just about trying to lift kids out of poverty. That would help in improving the education system if there are less children in poverty. It would help in housing budgets and the NHS, so it would save money across the Scottish budgets. The reality is that we have had a number of debates on that now. It is like Groundhog Day. The Government's answers are that they continue to be weak on tax powers and people will suffer. It is a budget that is more interesting in protecting the pockets of chief executives rather than putting teachers in schools. It is a budget that fails to address the scandal of child poverty and the cuts to public services. It is a budget that lets Scotland down. It is a budget that should be rejected by the Parliament tonight. Patrick Harvie will be filled by Willie Rennie. Thank you very much. Murdo Fraser said another day another budget debate. Certainly another day another opportunity for the Conservative Party to conveniently forget that during the first minority government session they voted through budget after budget after budget. Every single year, in fact, the Conservative Party voted for the SNP's budget. They did that by going in and negotiating and trying to get policy changes. They never quite managed a policy change during those years on anything like the scale that the Greens have achieved over the last two years. I have to admit that I am glad that they have decided to stop negotiating properly. We might well be seeing much worse budgets if the Conservative Party was still negotiating and trying to get policy change out of the Scottish Government as they used to. However, I remain disappointed that progressive political parties across this chamber are not also attempting to get change in the Scottish budget. It may well reduce my negotiating hand if other parties engaged constructively in that process, but I suspect that the outcome would be better as a whole. For those who did bring forward proposals at the very last minute—too late even for the Fiscal Commission to examine them—I really think that the process needs to be better in future. What we have as a result of the negotiating process that we engaged in with the Scottish Government is significant change. Not only those smaller-scale measures, but the additional fund that the finance secretary mentioned for communities to bring forward their proposals on rail improvements, which I am glad to see will be happening sooner than I expected. Not only the extra money to accelerate marine protected areas to protect our marine environment, not only a long-term shift away from high-carbon investment to low-carbon investment and an improvement in the public sector pay settlement, but also substantial reversal in the cuts to local government. Is the situation for local government perfect? Of course not. Does the budget relieve local government of every pressure that it faces? Of course not. However, that is a real-terms increase in the funding coming from the Scottish Government to local government, and that is an important step forward. I see that Monica Lennon is looking to intervene. Monica Lennon, I am grateful to Patrick Harvie. I wonder if he agrees with Mike Kirby from Unison, who says that the budget falls far short of maintaining vital levels of services for our local authorities. Does he agree? Patrick Harvie, I certainly agree that local government faces significant pressures. Some of that relates to rising costs, some of that relates to our expectation for a fair pay settlement, but what that cannot be placed at is cuts to the core funding from the local government finance order. We have ensured that that is going up, not down. The longer-term picture is one where we need to unite—whatever we disagree with about this budget—we need to unite in saying that the annual Scottish budget process must not become anual rearguard action against local government cuts. The fundamental situation that local government remains in is one of utter dependence on Scottish Government revenue. It has so limited financial power that, in many other European countries, what we call local government in Scotland would not be recognised as such. Local government ought to have a far greater ability to make its own decisions around local taxation and other fiscal issues. Those are issues that I think there should be agreement across political parties on. I welcome some of Labour's proposals on what they have called, but they are not a land value tax, but a levy on vacant and derelict land. I would like to see that and a real land value tax, but we know that it would take time to legislate for those and to implement them. I want to see progress on that. I also want to see progress on the recommendations that were agreed across political parties by the commission on local tax reform, which the Scottish Government and COSLA created and which recommended centrally the current system of council tax must end. The recommendations from that review, which all of us entered into—with the exception of the Conservatives—on good faith, as did local government. Those recommendations cannot be allowed to gather dust on the shelf. Today, I have written to the First Minister an open letter setting out a range of proposals that must be taken forward if we are going to ensure that we are not in the situation year after year after year where Scottish budgets become debates about how much pressure to push down the chain to local government. We should be setting a target for the percentage of local council finance that is raised locally. We should be introducing a new fiscal framework between the Scottish Government and local government, underpinned by the incorporation of the European Charter for local self-government into domestic law. We should be ensuring a commitment to multi-year indicative at least funding settlements from the Scottish Government and baselining the additional funds that have been won this year so that they can be relied upon for the future. We should be committing to legislation during the current parliamentary session to replace council tax with a fairer system. Again, that will take time for consultation, legislation and implementation, but the initial steps must begin if we are going to make progress. On non-domestic rates, what we were promised by the Scottish Government was a fundamental review and reform of the non-domestic rates. What we got instead was an incredibly limited and narrow review, the Barclay review, so that wider question remains. As well as vacant and derelict land levy, new fiscal powers need to be created for local government in order that we can have local government that is truly worthy of the name in Scotland, where it is not so entirely dependent on centralised decisions being made by the Scottish Government. If there is progress on the local tax reform agenda over the coming months and during the course of this year, the Greens will again be able to enter budget negotiations, but that, I am afraid, will be a precondition. The budget is built on a broken promise. Nicola Sturgeon, who is on the front bench today, will remember that she stood beside me in those debates in the 2016 election, and she promised basic rate taxpayers that their tax would not go up. Now, what we have said in this budget is that it has gone up. The reason why that is important is that it has led people to believe that their tax would not go up. That is important in terms of the integrity of a Government and its belief in how it conducts itself in terms of tax. If people are expected to pay more tax, they should be told that before an election campaign, just like the Liberal Democrats did. We were very clear, we were open, we were upfront about it. The SNP were not upfront about that, and that breaks trust with the voters. That is incredibly important. John Mason. I wonder if the member could confirm that he believes in proportional representation and that one minority party should not be able to force through its manifesto. Willie Rennie. John Mason was being made before, and he dismissed that very argument when we were in coalition, but now he wants to resurrect that argument to patch up his pathetic campaign to try and justify this tax rise. It is important that people are honest, open and upfront before election campaigns, but the SNP has not been that. We believe that tax rises should be for a specific purpose, to make sure that you invest to make a change so that people see the outcome at the end of that process. That builds confidence in any tax rises, and progressives like me believe that it is important that we make that case. The economy that we have seen today with the job figures that have been announced that shows that unemployment in Scotland has gone up 14,000 should be a warning signal for the Scottish Government. Now, to be fair, the UK figure has gone up as well, but even then the Scottish figure is above the UK average. We should be having a budget today that reflects that and meets the big challenge, because we have a second challenge coming down the track, which I am sure the minister will agree with me is a big threat, which is on Brexit. The Scottish Government and the UK Government agree on is that the predictions on all models put forward show that there will be a hit to the Scottish and the UK economy of between 2 per cent and 9 per cent as a result of Brexit. Whatever model you choose, there is going to be a hit. We should have a budget that matches that, that lives up to the potential and the challenge that is forthcoming—a budget for the long-term that is bold and meets those challenges. Yet again, that budget is a missed opportunity. The SNP is often behind the curve on the big issues that are put forward. On issues such as the pupil premium, it took five whole years before the Scottish Government admitted that the plan by the UK Government to implement that was working. It was closing the attainment gap by five percentage points. It took five years though for them to admit that it was working, so it was five years behind the curve, and that is a missed generation. On colleges, the colleges were starved of funds for a good five years. 150,000 places were cut from the colleges thanks to the SNP. Now they have finally admitted that that policy was wrong, and they are now opening the doors for part-time, mature students and women to take up the opportunities that are there for them, behind the curve for a good five years than on nursery education. I was boring everybody in the Parliament, and I am sure at the time, repeatedly, repeatedly, when I was going on. Yes, they agree. I tell you, I went on and on about nursery education because it really mattered. It took years for the SNP to accept that there was a case for two-year-olds to get nursery education. Now they have got it, two-year-olds are skipping through the doors of those nursery schools, thanks to the advocacy that we put forward, but yet again the SNP was behind the curve. Finally, on mental health, the worst of all, the strategy was delayed for over a year thanks to the SNP. The suicide prevention strategy was delayed, and as a result the investment was delayed in mental health. No. There is another missed opportunity here to really get people who are suffering from mental health problems back into the job market, giving them the opportunities that everyone else enjoys in society. Again, the SNP is behind the curve. No, not just now. I have made it clear that what I think this Government should be is a bold Government that is meeting the challenges on Brexit and is not missing those opportunities so that it is not behind the curve. There is one bright spot in the budget, and that is the advocacy of my colleagues Liam MacArthur and Tavish Scott on the ferries. They saved the internal ferry services for the Northern Isles from collapse. They saved it. If it was not for them, the lifeline services would be struggling, and it is the SNP Government that would have overseen the collapse of those services. That is the one bright spot, and I commend the advocacy of my colleagues Liam MacArthur and Tavish Scott. However, what this Government should be doing is investing for transformational change on mental health to take the budget up to £1.2 billion, where it should be to tackle the problems. That is where the budget should be. The budget should be investing £500 million in education in nurseries, in schools and in colleges, not just for the sake of education, but for the sake of our economy as well, because by investing in the skills and talents of our people, we can grow that economy for the future. We can grow the economy in the face of the challenge of Brexit being pursued by the Conservatives, and we can meet that challenge that we see today with 14,000 more people unemployed under this Government. Those are the things that we should be doing. That is the opportunity that this Government is missing. I call Bruce Crawford to be followed by Dean Lockhart. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this stage 3 budget bill debate this afternoon. I am pleased because I sincerely believe that this is perhaps the most important budget setting day since the advent of devolution almost 19 years ago. I am very pleased that the SNP Government has submitted to the Parliament a budget that sets the tone for the type of nation we want to be and clearly outlines the values of the progressive politicians who back it. So, too, does this budget have the potential to be transformative in the improvements that it can deliver for the citizens of Scotland? This is a budget that, at its heart and within the limited powers that are available to this Parliament, will deliver a stronger economy and a fairer Scotland. You know that, if there is one spending commitment that signals how we can build that stronger economy and fairer country to begin to transform Scotland, it is the investment of £600 million to deliver superfast broadband to 100 per cent of properties. Here, with a commitment that says loudly and clearly to all of Scotland, no matter where you live, whether it is in one of our great cities or in the remotest part or our fantastic land, no part of our country will be left behind. Here is a commitment that matches nowhere else on the islands that clearly sets the tone for the type of nation we want to be and a nation that will give you the potential to succeed in the coming digital age no matter where you choose to make your home or to live and work. As technology advances, so too must our country. Geography can no longer be a barrier to being connected to the digital world and all the advantages that can bring both economically and socially. In contrast, the UK Government is doing their level best to create new barriers to economic success through the madness of a possible hard Brexit and the inevitable impact that this will have, particularly on the availability of labour. In Scotland, therefore, we must do all that we can to enable as many people as possible to enter the workforce of the future. That is not just an objective that is of economic necessity, it is also about building a more resilient, fairer and more equal society, again setting out the type of nation and country we want to be. That is why the funding of early learning and childcare through capital and revenue spending of £243 million in next financial year alone is so necessary to support the infrastructure and workforce capacity. That funding will help to drive transformational change in the availability of early learning and childcare, doubling funded provision from 600 to 1,140 hours by 2020. I do not think that it is possible to overemphasise just how important high-quality learning and childcare can be to ensure that our children and their parents are in a position to achieve their full potential. Every child in Scotland deserves the best start in life, regardless of their background, and the expansion of free early learning and childcare can help to do just that. As well as transforming the choices and chances of children, the policy will also save families thousands of pounds in fees every year and a further benefit to the wider economy through the creation of thousands of new jobs. That is a budget that, despite the backdrop of a UK Government cut in our day-to-day spending, murdered my cloud—murder my cloud? Murdo Fraser? Bring back Murdo my cloud. He was much better at playing the ball than Murdo Fraser ever was. Spending of £211 million commits increased funding of £400 million to Scotland's NHS. Over the course of the next five years, this is a budget that will see investment in mental health services increased by £17 million, delivering an additional 800 mental health workers. From the doubling of active travel budget to additional £15 million investment in research and development, from real-terms increase in both college and higher education budgets to an additional £170 million for local government, that is a budget that delivers for all of Scotland. Of course, to be in a position to support such a budget, you require revenue-raising proposals that are sensitive to the needs of individuals and organisations and also, crucially, are capable of gathering support across a wide spectrum of stakeholders in society. You know, like most people in here, I aspire to live in a prosperous, progressive, fair Scotland. That is why I am so very proud to be supporting a Government whose tax proposals also set the tone for the type of nation we want to be. Tax proposals that protect those on the lowest incomes and make the system much more progressive. Those who are opposed to the Government's budget will need to look to themselves as to why they cannot support plans, but I have no doubt and doubtedly will make Scotland the fairest tax part of the United Kingdom while protecting our country against the worst excesses of the Tory Government, investing in our national health service, protecting our services and growing economy. I am very sure of one thing today. Those who support this budget in our Parliament here in Edinburgh today will be in tune with the values of the vast majority of the people of Scotland. I call Dean Lockhart to be followed by Kate Forbes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. During the budget debates, we have heard time and again the SNP's standard line on the economy, that the fundamentals of the Scottish economy are strong. However, once you look beyond the SNP spin, you see the reality, because recent data published by the Scottish Government itself has highlighted the unprecedented weakness faced by the economy. Economic growth in Scotland is now the lowest in the developed world. We have seen the value of Scottish trade decline 5 per cent, business investment is down 15 per cent and, just last week, productivity figures show that productivity in Scotland is at the lowest levels for a decade. I thank Dean Lockhart for taking intervention, specifically in relation to business investment. He will know the relationship between capital allowances and investment in businesses, something controlled by the UK Government. Could he characterise whether he thinks that there is any involvement by the UK Government in the economy in Scotland, unlike his colleague Murdo Fraser? For someone who is obsessed with the constitution, Keith Brown does not seem to understand that the UK Government is responsible for monetary policy and interest rates, which are at record lows. The Scottish Government is responsible for enterprise policy and economic growth, which is also at record lows. If the UK Government is responsible for weak economic growth in Scotland, why is the rest of the UK growing three times faster than Scotland? The reality is that the fundamentals of the economy are not strong, as the Fraser of Alder has said. We are facing the longest period of weak growth for 60 years. With the Fiscal Commission forecasting further weak growth for the next four years, this budget should have been a programme for growth. It should have been about stimulating the economy, increasing productivity and reversing the decline in business investment. It should have been about closing the gap that I have just explained with the rest of the UK, which will cost Scotland £16.5 billion of lost GDP between 2007 and 2021, but the budget does none of the above. Instead, the SNP has once again prioritised politics over the needs of the economy and has once again joined forces with its green branch office to deliver a budget that will damage the economy, depress productivity and discourage business investment. The budget will be damaging for the economy for the simple reason that increasing tax on a million workers will reduce disposable incomes in Scotland by a total of £220 million a year. In other words, that is £220 million a year going out of the economy. That will reduce consumption and reduce spending. The Scottish Retail Consortium has given the following example. A one-pence increase in tax is equal to approximately 2 per cent of retail sales. If that money is going into Government coffers, it is likely to lead to further reductions in sales. The SRC goes on to say that, with a quarter of a million jobs in retail, any further fall in sales will have serious implications for the wider economy. We agree that increasing tax in this budget will damage the economy. I will give way to John Mason. Would you accept that, when that money is recirculated—for example, with more teachers and more nurses—they will spend the money and that keeps the economy going? Dean Lockhart Thank you. Based on the SNP's mismanagement over the past 10 years, I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever that a fraction of that money will find its way to the front line of services. We have seen countless overruns amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds on IT systems alone, so no, I do not share that view of John Mason. In terms of productivity, we saw last week that productivity in Scotland has declined for each of the last eight quarters. As a result, Scotland is at the bottom of the second quartile of OECD countries, more than 21 per cent below the SNP's target to be in the top quartile. In contrast, numbers released today show that productivity for the UK economies a whole has increased for the past two quarters at the fastest rate for 10 years. We need to address this productivity challenge in Scotland. It is vital that we keep existing workers, existing skilled workers and attract even more, but this budget will make attracting skilled workers all the more difficult. For over a million skilled workers, it means a reduction in their net salary, a lower take-home wage than colleagues elsewhere in the UK. I need to make progress. That is why the Scottish Chamber of Commerce has warned that this budget will make Scotland a less attractive part of the UK for skilled employees and for business to recruit. By increasing tax on skilled workers, this budget will only exacerbate the low growth, low productivity and low income economy that the SNP has created over the past decade. Finally, on business investment, the budget imposes further costs on the struggling business sector in Scotland. By virtue of the increase in the poundage rate and the large business supplement alone, business in Scotland will be paying an extra £150 million a year. It should come as no surprise that we have seen a 15 per cent decline in business investment in the past year. Business in Scotland, after all, was promised £500 million of investment support under the Scottish growth scheme, which the First Minister described as a £0.5 billion vote of confidence in the Scottish economy to support business. Eighteen months later, we now know that only £25 million of assistance has been given to Scottish business. That is 5 per cent of the investment support that was promised by the First Minister to business in Scotland. With economic policies like that, it is no wonder that the Scottish economy is facing the longest period of weak growth in 60 years. Let me conclude by highlighting that this budget is not fit for purpose. Not only does it breach a central manifesto pledge made by the SNP, it does not come close to addressing the fundamental challenges faced by the Scottish economy. After 10 years of SNP mismanagement, we are now seeing the weakest growth for 60 years. The budget will only further damage the economy, and that is why it is time for a change of economic policy in Scotland. I call Kate Forbes, followed by Colin Smyth. I would like to round the chamber that I am still the PLO to the cabinet secretary. Presiding Officer, I believe that there is a strong consensus across Scottish society in favour of investing in our common good. All sides of the chamber regularly make demands to invest more in our NHS, to build more housing and to strengthen broadband, and, although there is definitely disagreement about how we fund it, there is agreement about the need to maintain or increase funding in the building blocks of healthcare, education and connectivity. Despite the challenging economic backdrop, the budget targets investment to meet the challenges of today and seize the opportunities of tomorrow. It is a budget for the farmer, staff and the engineer in Drumryd rochyt, for the doctor in Dingwall, because people in the Highlands want reliable connectivity. In the budget, there is a commitment to invest £600 million to support the R100 programme to deliver superfast broadband to 100 per cent of residential and business properties. We want a well-resourced NHS Highland with more healthcare professionals, and the budget not only increases spending on health by more than £400 million, but it also lifts the 1 per cent public sector pay cap and provides a pay rise for NHS staff, the only place in the UK to do so. People in the Highlands want more and affordable homes. In this budget, we are investing heavily in the provision of affordable housing with £756 million towards the £3 billion to build 50,000 affordable homes over the course of this Parliament, and it specifically maintains funding for rural and island housing funds. We want to improve roads and rail links, and this budget has £1.2 billion of investment in key road and rail projects, including continuing the A9 dualling and upgrading the Highland mainline between Perth and Inverness. It will also continue to progress design and development work on improvements to the A82 between Tarbet and Inver Arnan. We want a well-resourced education for our children, an accessible further and higher education for young people. Not only is the budget still committed to free education across Scotland, it is providing £120 million directly to head teachers to reduce the impact of poverty on a child's educational attainment and invest nearly £2.4 billion in our colleges, universities, enterprise and skills bodies, and of course we want to see economic growth. With doubled funding for city region deals, support on business rates and a boost to businesses R&D funding, the budget is indeed trying to mitigate the deeply unsettling times that are fast approaching our economy as the UK Government reduces our access to the talent pool and makes it harder for businesses to trade across borders. That is our budget, and that is the budget that every MSP will vote on in one way or another at 5 pm today. That list of investment is not like Labour's unfunded, uncosted wish list. It has not been magicked up by the Tory's incoherent plan to ask for more spending whilst reducing investment in public services by over £500 million. With changes to tax, there has been much talk about behavioural change, about how people will respond. That is a fair enough question. I strongly suspect that the stronger public services and the more inclusive society that the budget will build will have a behavioural impact, because it will attract people to live, work and do business in Scotland. Last October, the IMF's tax report was clear. Excessive inequality erodes social cohesion, leads to political polarisation and ultimately leads to lower economic growth. That budget delivers three results. Firstly, it makes our taxation fairer by cutting taxes for 70 per cent of taxpayers who earn under £33,000. Two, it raises additional revenue by asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay a little bit more. Three, critically, it targets funding to reduce inequality and to grow our economy. I will take the intervention. I can allow you the time, Ms Forbes. Finlay Carson. One of the members confirmed that, in the year 2018-2019, the broadband budget has actually dropped. Kate Forbes, this budget allocate commits to the £600 million towards procurement of the R100 programme, which will deliver superfast broadband across Scotland and does not commit to the shoddy 10 megabytes per second that the UK Government is proposing. Presiding Officer, there is no question that we face challenges today. Between 2010-11 and 2019-20, our discretionary budget allocation will have decreased by £2.6 billion, and the worst of the UK Government's cuts are exacerbating inequality in Scotland. We will face challenges in the future with widespread economic concerns about recruiting workers with tighter immigration controls and accessing markets on a tariff-free basis. It is in that context that the budget protects the NHS and public services, it supports low earners and it will unlock Scotland's economic potential. I have a wee bit time in hand, so I can allow some for interventions. I call Colin Smyth to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. The inconvenient truth for every single SNP, MSP and every green MSP is that the budget that it will rubber stamp later today will mean that, right across Scotland, hundreds of local councillors of all political persuasions and none will, in the days and weeks ahead, have to decide which services in their community will be cut and which of their neighbour's jobs will be axed. The debate taking place in council chambers right now, right across Scotland, is not about which services to trim, it is about which services to scrap. I listened carefully to Patrick Harvie's contribution earlier to find out why the Greens were so desperate to be the SNP's cheerleaders in those attacks on our councils. All I heard, frankly, was complete denial and an appalling attempt by Patrick Harvie to try to blame other parties for his decision to sell out. Patrick Harvie argued—I will give way—that our approach to the budget has secured a reversal of £170 million of local cuts. How much change has his party's approach made to the Scottish budget this year or last? Let me tell just exactly what the reality is of Patrick Harvie's negotiations. Let me tell Patrick Harvie exactly what the reality of his negotiations is. He stands up and says that, as a result of a local government settlement that is rising by just 1.5 per cent, there will be no cuts. Frankly, it defies the undeniable fact of this budget that, if you increase burdens on local councils but you do not give them the extra funds to meet those demands, councils need to cut existing services. So far, Patrick Harvie has failed to acknowledge that. Let me explain to him what that means in simple terms for Mr Harvie. If I gave my four-year-old daughter £5 to spend on sweeties last year but this year I tell her that I am going to give her £5 again but she has to spend £2.50 on lemonade, she is going to say to me that I will have to cut what I spend on sweeties. If my four-year-old daughter can get that basic fact, why can't Patrick Harvie get that basic fact at all? The budget fails to provide extra funding for local government but it adds additional extra burdens in relation to childcare, social care and pay, but there is no additional funding to meet those extra burdens. Councils therefore have to cut existing spending on services. Frankly, it is dishonest of the SNP and the Greens to try to pretend otherwise. The problem is that for local councils it is not sweeties that are being forced to cut, it is the school crossing patrols that keep our children safe, which some people in the SNP seem to find amusing, it is the carers who look after their loved ones as if they were their own, it is the energy efficiency programmes to the Green Party, the energy efficiency programmes to tackle the scandal of fuel poverty that are not protected because they are funded by local councils facing cuts and it is the learning support assistance that acts from our classrooms because they are not part of this Government's arbitrary teacher number target. It is the addition of extra burdens without the... I will give way to Mr Crawford yet. Bruce Crawford. Thank you Colin Smyth for giving away. Yesterday, the Labour spokesman for finance had conceded that to introduce your tourism tax and your land tax, you would need to bring in emergency legislation. Has any emergency legislation been drafted by the Labour Party? Have you produced any essential new IT systems, costings for new recruits, identification of who the collection agency would be or produced any necessary guidance and procedures? In fact, have you done anything at all? Colin Smyth. The reality is that the reason why a tourism tax has not been introduced is because this Government does not have the political will to make the changes that will fund public services properly. The failure to face up to the fact that the extra burdens without extra cash is an underhand way to also increase central government ring ffencing of local government. We have had ring ffencing before, but at least when previous Governments brought in a new initiative, it came at a time of growing budgets with extra resources over and above the core local government grant. What is so perverse about the ring ffencing supported in this budget by the SNP and Greens is that it does not come with any new money whatsoever to fund it. The Government is simply reading the local government's settlement, stealing cash from other council services from commitments on teacher numbers to the carers act responsibilities. Hundreds of millions of pounds are being sucked from existing services because the finance secretary does not have the guts to raise the additional tax that is needed to deliver his own unfunded commitments. After five years of attacks and £1.5 billion of cuts to lifeline council services, the utter contempt with which this Government views local government continues. I could never quite work out just why the SNP has such disdain for local government and local councillors. It makes them so determined to attack the very services that the most vulnerable rely on most. I can only put it down to the obsessive centralist dictatorial way that they want to run Scotland, where more and more decisions are made in Hollywood or rather Bute house and fewer and fewer are made in our local councils. Local government is seen by this Government not as a partner but as the enemy. When it comes to funding, there is no meaningful negotiations just in position. If local government dares to call for better funding, the threat of removing funding further is waved in their face by the finance secretary. That has all been done, frankly, by the SNP with the full support of the Greens. Keeping the YES coalition together is clearly far more important to the Greens than keeping local council services and jobs. However, we know that it does not have to be like this. We know that all those cuts supported by the SNP and Greens today can be avoided, all of them, not just some of them. This Parliament now has the power to make different choices, to be genuinely progressive, to truly redistribute wealth, to say to the people of Scotland, if we want decent public services, we need to properly fund those services. What a real opportunity this budget could have been for progressive politics, for public services and for the fight against the scandal of poverty in Scotland. An opportunity to free 30,000 children living in poverty out of the misery of austerity by increasing child benefit by just £5 a week. A chance to stop all the cuts to our local council services and a chance to invest £500 million more and are overstretched under resourced NHS. The SNP and Greens are good when it comes to the rhetoric of ending austerity, progressive taxation, wealth redistribution and reducing poverty, but this budget shows that they are found wanting when it comes to putting that rhetoric into practice. The modest tinkering on income tax by Derek Mackay raises a meager £83 million more when he takes off the cuts to business rates. That is just £83 million going into our public services. That is £83 million more and a budget of £32 billion. Earlier, Derek Mackay— No, you will have to come to a close, please, Mr Smith. Earlier, Derek Mackay claimed that anybody voting against this budget is somehow voting against all government spending. The reality is that today we could have had a very different budget— You will have to come to a close, please, Mr Smith. Today we could have had a very different budget, a budget that stopped austerity cuts and stopped the SNP— Mr Smith, could you please come to a close? … in our tracks, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You did see it. And I'll call Kenneth Gibson to be followed by Miles Briggs. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today I hope and believe Parliament will approve spending plans to build a fairer and more prosperous Scotland, investing in our public services, our workers and our economy. Today we take another step towards delivering the bold and progressive agenda set out in the programme for government. MSP colleagues who will vote with the Government demonstrate their commitment to developing stronger public services and a more inclusive society. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Tories, their Labour brothers-in-arms and Willie Rennie's gang of three. First to that divided grouplet, the Orkney and Shetland party, elected as active constituency members with traditional party support and their erstwhile mainland colleagues, the tactical voters, that vote for us not because you believe in us but to stop somebody else's party. Legend has it that when Howard Carter prized open tooting commons tomb back in 1922, he was mesmerised by treasures moulded in gold and carved in ivory, trumpets, weapons, clothing in all manner of wonders, and aged paparous scroll caught his eye. Tentifully unfurled, he carefully deciphered the ancient hieroglyphics. One simple phrase emerged, a penny for education. Through mylania of war, revolution, reformation, pestilence and plague, fire and flood that shekel, denarius, groat for education policy, has remained sacred to a small, much-despised and marginalised sect known to the ancients as Lib Dems. Heretics say that it has only been policies since 1983 and much devalued by inflation since then, yet, even though its architects have seen the policy ignored for decades and many of its early adherents moved to that big ballot box in the sky, it's current high priest, St Willie of Rennie, who is here in his ghostly, if not actual presence, remains an avid devotee. Without making any effort to explain how this wizened sage mistately claims its implementation, we would release £500 million for education, although the precise mechanism of how much would be allocated to each part of the system remains not only to the truest of cult members. Certainly, this lazy thinking has not been explained to Parliament or the people of Scotland. If only this tiny group of latter-day mage I spent as much time explaining the budget as they do following the letter, if not the spirit of the law in relation to election expenses in their target seats. I must admit that I was a little bewildered by the Tory party political broadcast that aired earlier this month. Apart from Annie Wells, there was a little sign of a familiar Tory faces that we know and love here at Holyrood, and it said that it was a showcase of Ruth's warm, coothy, more proletarian Tories. It's frankly insulting that the Tories believe that the electorate don't need to hear their policy ideas. Tax proposals are indeed the failure of the 13 Tory MPs from Scotland to represent Scottish interests at Westminster. Do the Tories really believe that people will be convinced that they have changed simply because Annie Wells used to work at Marks and Spencer's or because Bill Grant MP's late failure was a minor? I think that in the next broadcast, we need to hear the authentic voice of Toryism in Scotland. Donald Cameron, 27, for a heel, discussing the trials and tribulations that have been a clan chief in 21st century Scotland, are debating with Alexander Burnett, who is the most aristocratic heritage. Where the Harrow's Polo team was better than Eaton's or Sir Edwin Mountain, bewailing the difficulties and finding a good butler these days, or Peter Chapman wistfully reminiscing about the four farms that he jointly owned prior to becoming an MSP. In the next broadcast, Tory voters need to be reassured that still the same old party of vested interests landed wealth and privilege it has always been. Or if we must have Bill Grant rather than polishing road signs, he could explain why he not only refuses to support the 4,000, I'll let her in, don't you worry. The 4,750 waspy women in his constituency and signed a women against state pension inequality pledge. He fell asleep on the green benches during Westminster's debate on the matter back in December. In any case, I hope that retired firefighter Bill Grant will join me in welcoming his budget, which will protect police and fire services and work to ensure that he attain infill the savings created from now being able to reclaim VAT, as well as returning the £140 million already taken from these services by the UK Tory Government. I yield to the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party, who Nicholas Somes has been wording up and down Westminster declaring that Ruth Davidson is not getting my mid-susic seat, Ms Davidson. Ruth Davidson. I would like to ask the member if such a long diatribe on individual members of my party, does he think that it shows more the reason why he's never graced the front benches of his own party or more the reason why he's got nothing to say about his own party's budget? Kenneth Gibson. I'll be about a deja vu. That's not the first time you used that line, Ruth. So you need to think up some new ones as we go forward. I am talking about the budget, but the point is that it's the kind of false face that your party is presenting to the people of Scotland, which I find most irksome. Meanwhile, Labour has again been too preoccupied with infighting and political manoeuvring to make any meaningful contribution to the budget process. Perhaps Jackie Baillie won't take muddle-phrase up on his Valentine offer to join the Conservative party, but the way that Labour MSPs vote with the Tories against the SNP government, one might be forgiven to get in the pair confused. Jeremy Corbyn's MP ventured up to North Britain last week to meet a select group of acolytes while serving a wee pop at the SNP and austerity. Perhaps someone should general remind them that in fact Labour introduced a point of order to John Scott. I'm just wondering what relevance any of Mr Gibson's speeches had to the budget debate at all. It's been a diatribe. As Ruth Davidson has said, against named individuals, low blows in this Parliament and absolutely nothing to do with the motion under consideration today. I'm sure that Mr Scott that Mr Gibson is about to enlighten us on that, but it wasn't actually a point of order. I'd like to thank my Ayrshire colleague. I'm sorry that I haven't mentioned you in any of my speeches this year. We'll perhaps do that later on in further debates. Labour, of course, introduced austerity while still in government at Westminster and have consistently failed to oppose Tory welfare cuts and sen. In fact, what was interesting was that in James Kelly's opening speech, he didn't criticise the Tory government's cut to this Parliament's budget once. Collier, you want cognitive dissonance, collective amnesia? I prefer outright hypocrisy. Today, Labour and the Tories will vote against investing in childcare, they will vote against improving our schools and hospitals, they will vote against protecting our public services and they will vote against a fairer society for all. It's important to bear in mind that 70 per cent of Scots will actually pay less tax the coming year than they do now. That might be difficult for the opposition to spin away when they explain to their constituents why they voted against today's budget but is a fact nonetheless. By diverging from the UK on tax, we can better protect our public services that are free at the point of use, including free prescriptions, free personal care and free higher education, which many MSPs will have these children benefit from. Our investment will help to reduce the attainment gap, double free childcare, deliver 50,000 additional homes and £600 million in broadband. Please support today's budget to deliver first, last and always for the people of Scotland. I'm going to first of all apologise to Mr Scott, because that was in fact a point of order. I think that Mr Scott will be pleased that relevance did come eventually. I now call Miles Briggs to be followed by Ruth Maguire. I think that that's very debatable, Presiding Officer, but anyway, if there's anything we've heard from that, I don't think that the member will be in the SNP's next party political broadcast with Nicola Sturgeon, but we'll put that there. I want to focus my comments today on what the budget means for our NHS in Scotland. The finance secretary and the SNP Government have been boasting about record health spending, but for some reason they never want to refer to the fact that a significant part of our extra health spending is now directly linked to the Barnett consequential funding that the Government receives. Since the UK Conservative Government took the decision to protect health spending, that is amounted to £2.154 billion in extra spending since 2011 that the Scottish Government has for our health service. How is the overall spending on our NHS across UK nations performing? Official statistics show that, in recent years, because of the decisions by SNP ministers, health spending in Scotland is rising roughly half the rate of that in England. So, while health spending in England has increased by around 10 per cent between 2012 and 2016, it's only increased by 5 per cent, would Ben Macpherson like to maybe tell me the answer to that? No, you haven't said anything yet, but I have now. Ben Macpherson. Thank you for taking the intervention. Miles Briggs is speaking positively in favour of spending on the NHS, so perhaps he can explain to the chamber today why he is likely to vote against £400 million extra spending for the NHS and why the Scottish Conservative tax proposals of taking £501 million out of the Scottish revenue budget would cut 12,000 nurses from the Scottish NHS. Perhaps Miles Briggs would like to explain his rationale for that. Can I just say to Mr Briggs, don't stand up while another person is still intervening? Please wait to your call. In terms of what I have already answered, the £2.154 billion that has come to Scotland from a UK Conservative Government is, I would even say for SNP politicians, a bit of a drop in the ocean from what they are saying is not being put into our health service. We have invested across the United Kingdom in our health service. It's a record we're proud of, it's whether or not SNP ministers are going to take this forward. It's worse listening if they won't listen to me to Professor Jim Gallagher, whose authorative public spending in Scotland report from September this year concluded and emphasised that, in 2006, Scotland had a health lead of 16 per cent over England, but by 2016, that lead had reduced to just 7.5 per cent. To repeat, that has not been caused by overall squeeze on the Scottish budget, but the priority choices of SNP ministers who have given less of the priority spend to our health service than the budget as a whole. How will that impact on our NHS? Within the SNP green budget for the NHS next year, there's a big cut to NHS capital spending of almost £67 million. That is despite the well-documented backlog of maintenance repairs across NHS Scotland's estate, which is estimated to now stand at over £900 million. The fact that the proportion of significant buildings now within our NHS are deemed at high risk and maintenance has increased. The high—very briefly. Can Miles Briggs explain how the NHS would cope if I had to see through the £211 million reduction next year in resource from the UK Government and, on top of that, a further £556 million reduction that I would need to find from Scotland's public services if I followed the Tory tax plans? I think that the SNP members are completely forgetting what I've said already. Over £2 billion in additional money has come to our health service. How the Government decides to prioritise that has been the Government's decision-making. I want to talk about—specifically, I'm welcome from the cabinet secretary today—the comments that he said on Frank's Law. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government is finally working with stakeholders to prepare for the implementation of the change. I'd therefore like to hear more about how much is being provided and what he has said in terms of preparing for the implementation when he sums up today. For over 9,000 Scots across our country, Frank's Law is needed today. It was needed yesterday, so I hope that we will see that delivered as soon as possible. As my party leader Ruth Davidson has said, the SNP and I will have our support to do that and bring it forward as soon as possible. It is specifically because of that that we need to take action. We all know the demographic challenges that our country is facing. In Edinburgh alone, the number of people aged over 85 is expected to double by 2032 to over 19,000. The number who require intensive levels of support will increase by 60 per cent and the number of people living with dementia is projected to increase by 25 per cent over the next 10 years to over 10,000. The SNP budget does not offer any long-term thinking on how we address the ever-increasing demands of our social care system, which already cannot cope with the current levels of demand. The overriding of all this is the fact that probably the biggest threat to the future investment in our NHS and in our social care system is the pitiful economic growth that we are seeing in Scotland. SNP ministers seem to be in denial about how those growth rates and low growth rates are not increasing the tax take that we see in Scotland. This is something that SNP ministers in future budgets are going to be responsible for, and I think that the people of Scotland will judge them on that. Instead of boosting our Scottish economy and making Scotland a more attractive and competitive place to work and live and invest, the budget hikes taxes and sends out the wrong message that Scotland is a high-tax country. Indeed, SNP income tax rises, even without the council tax rise that most Scots will experience, are the highest income tax rises on Scots for over 40 years. The Labour Party in this chamber in Jeremy Corbyn may be preaching the failed economics of the 1970s, but they are being delivered by the SNP Government in Holyrood today. I believe that this budget will go down as another staging post in the journey of the public in Scotland losing faith in this SNP Government. From their mismanagement of our public services to their seemingly indifference to wanting to grow and create a positive economy in Scotland, in the coming years we will see increasing numbers of people finding that they are paying more and receiving less. The SNP Government has no new ideas to grow our economy and it is making Scottish taxpayers pay the price for their failure. Failure to stimulate and grow our Scottish economy and our public services will be the ones that bear the brunt of this slow growth in the future. Deputy Presiding Officer, Scotland deserves better than this. Yes, you must conclude. I will do. Scotland deserves better than this. It is time for a Scottish Government that understands that economic success is fundamental to a sustainable public service. Thank you. I call Ruth Maguire to be followed by Jenny Marham. Ruth Maguire, please. This budget is bold and progressive and delivers for families and communities across Scotland. This budget is a clear example of the fact that, where we have the powers here in Scotland, we are making different choices from those pursued by the callous Tory Government at Westminster. The Scottish Tories would happily follow their lead cutting tax for the highest earners and creating a £500 million black hole in our public finances. Fortunately for the people of Scotland, although we cannot control what the Tories do at Westminster, in power in Scotland we can and we are making different choices. Scotland will be the fairest tax part of the UK with the best deal for taxpayers, allowing us to mitigate Tory cuts, invest in our NHS, protect our public services and grow the economy. Under the progressive tax reforms, 70 per cent of taxpayers will pay less than last year, while high earners will face a modest increase. Those tax changes will allow the Scottish Government to increase health spending by £400 million to £13.6 billion, lift the public sector pay gap and provide a substantial package of investment in the economy and in tackling poverty and social inequalities. That is good news for people across Scotland and, in particular, in my Cunningham South constituency, one of the areas that are suffering most under Tory austerity. No. North Ayrshire is a council area with amongst the highest rates of poverty in Scotland, alongside Glasgow and Dundee. In Irvine West, one-third of children are living in poverty. That statistic should shock and shame us as policy makers. However, Irvine West is more than that statistic and it demands only admiration for the resilience of the community's living and working there. We all know that the Tory-imposed austerity is one of the main reasons behind rising child poverty. To quote from the introduction of the Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board's 2017 report The State of Child Health spotlight on child poverty and welfare reform, child poverty is predicted to increase significantly in Scotland during the lifetime of the current UK Parliament, largely due to welfare reform. The Scottish Tories budget plans would further exacerbate this dire situation, taking a further £500 million out of the public purse. In stark contrast to the Tories plans to slash tax for the highest earners, whilst cutting support for the poorest, the SNP budget will mitigate austerity and tackle inequalities. In stark contrast to Labour's rhetoric of doom and gloom, which criticises everything, whilst offering few solutions for anything, we will take concrete action to improve people's life. Negative rhetoric alone doesn't help anyone. It does a disservice to the folk living in our communities with the greatest challenges. What will help my constituents is the £100 million that this Government will spend mitigating UK welfare cuts next year, including £50 million to mitigate the callous bedroom tax. What will help my constituents is a tackling child poverty fund, worth £50 million, over the period of the child poverty delivery plan. What will help my constituents is £1.5 million of investment in a family financial health check guarantee to help families with children to get all the money that they are entitled to and to access the best deals on financial products, services and energy bills. What will help my constituents is a £1.5 million fair food fund, which will see the Scottish Government work with national and local partners to ensure that everyone can access healthy, well-being and well-being in dignified ways. The expansion of free early years childcare will help my constituents. The new best start grant to provide financial support to low-income families will also help, as will the baby box, giving practical support to new parents and making sure that every baby in Scotland has the essentials that they need. It could go on, but the point is clear. Within the limited confines of the political and economic powers that it has, the SNP Scottish Government is getting on with the job of taking concrete steps to significantly improve the lives of people of Scotland. As well as the bold central government initiatives, the Government has ensured that local government will receive an above-inflation increase in resource funding. For North Ayrshire, that means a budget boost of an extra £4 million to spend on local services to improve the lives of my constituents in Cunningham South. It means more money to spend on things such as employability hubs, school clothing grants and free school meal provision during the holidays, as well as in term time. It means more money to pursue projects such as the poverty challenge fund that focuses specifically on preventative measures to support those most likely to experience poverty, or the funding being used to establish community food programmes to explore how more sustainable models of local and dignified food provision can be developed, or the funding that will develop North Ayrshire's fair for all strategy to reduce inequalities. An increased health spending will allow NHS Ayrshire and Arran to continue to build on excellent initiatives such as the integrated working, taking place between midwives and income maximisation specialists within NHS Ayrshire and Arran to increase income for pregnant women and their families. Voting against the Scottish budget will be a vote against investing in childcare, in our schools, in hospitals and in other public services, giving them the funds that they need to deliver better services for all of Scotland. Voting for this budget is a vote for a different path and a better future for the people of Scotland than the one being imposed on them by the Tories and Westminster. I know what side I'm on. Thank you. I call Jenny Marra to be followed by Tom Arthur, Ms Marra, please. Presiding Officer, let me start from where Ruth Maguire finished there, because I'm sure she'll agree with me that far too often in this chamber we talk about the symptoms of poverty rather than the causes. The cabinet secretary won't be surprised that I want to spend my time today talking about his sports tax that he has put on local communities right across the country. I link it to Ms Maguire's comments because I was speaking to a sports expert just yesterday who said to me that this sports tax that Derek Mackay is putting on our communities makes the delivery of the prevention agenda in the Christie commission very, very difficult. The Barclay review proposal to end rates relief for local authorities' arms-length organisations are of real concern. Those organisations run a huge range of sport, leisure and cultural services and they qualify for rates relief. Indeed, Allios, and the cabinet secretary knows this, were initially set up for tax purposes, so councils would have a bit more cash to provide much-needed sport and leisure facilities. Today, Derek Mackay in his budget is going to give us a sports tax in Scotland that will make it far more difficult for councils to build new sports halls and libraries. Astonishingly, to me, part of the rationale behind the Barclay proposals is that Allios have an unfair competitive advantage over private leisure providers. Let me quote from the Barclay review. Allios create unfair competition between the public and private sectors. On the grounds of fairness, we believe that there should be a level playing field and council Allios should no longer be able to abuse the system. Frankly, I think that that admission is very, very surprising. I want to ask Derek Mackay today if he accepts this argument that there is this unfair competition because, if he does, I say to him that he is accepting right-wing ideology in his public policy for local authorities. I thank Jenny Marra for taking the intervention and for absolute clarity that I am not implementing the Barclay recommendation as it relates to Allios, as the chamber knows fine well. However, as a committee convener and a Labour MSP, would Jenny Marra explain how it can be, as a committee convener, that the member has written to me demanding to know how I address the deficit in the NDR pool but as a Labour member supporting the Labour budget, I sustain that deficit in the NDR pool. You cannot have it both ways. Jenny Marra. Mr Mackay knows very well what the Labour proposals are on taxation in this budget and we would not have to make this cut. He knows perfectly well what he is doing with the sports tax. He is top-slicing the grant that local authorities get for this money. He says that there is unfair competition between private providers and Allios, but I can guarantee him that there have been no planning applications from private gym providers in inner city Dundee. Has he well known that the money is not there to make these facilities work? It is the philosophy of this party that Government steps in to provide public amenities, not just in the communities that most need them, but across the board to provide equal and high-quality sporting and cultural opportunities. No, the SNP would have us believe that they share this philosophy. I will take you in a minute if I can make some progress, but it has happened many times in this chamber before and you only need to look at the detail of what they are actually doing to see the reality. Let me spell out the effects of Mr Mackay's sports tax in case anyone is in any doubt. Late last week, Mr Mackay found a fix for the regional performance centre in Dundee. He had to. His decision to take tax relief from Allios was more than doubling the operating costs of the planned centre. Indeed, his £800,000 tax grab on the centre left a question mark hanging over its viability. Even if it had remained viable, those costs would have been passed on to the people using the centre. He fixed that problem on Dundee, and that is very welcome. However, his policy still stands for the rest of the country and for other projects in Dundee. I will take you in a minute, Mr Harvie. The new tennis centre in Inverclyde, who knows what is going to happen to that now, the new community centre and library in Minas Hill in Dundee? All those councils will have to find thousands more to fund those facilities, and the cabinet secretary knows that. As the councils this week passed their budgets, I am happy to take an intervention, Mr FitzPatrick. They pair their services back to the bone. Where will they find the cash for those new facilities? The member is in her last minute, so it must be brief on both sides. I am very grateful. Does the Labour Party, having welcomed the fact that this Barclay recommendation will not be fully implemented, still acknowledge that there remains an issue around accountability and that we should be creating incentives to bring services back into democratic accountable control, rather than seeing more and more assets transferred into alias? I agree that there is an issue around accountability, but what the proposal does is make councils find more money to build sports halls and libraries. It is completely unacceptable. The poorest council areas in Scotland created alias because they needed the relief to build community facilities. That need has not gone, it remains and is greater than ever, and I really hope that he will look again at that regressive tax. I call Tom Arthur to be followed by Liz Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the final debate before Parliament votes on the Scottish Government's budget. A budget that will benefit all who live in the Renfishersouth constituency that I am honoured to represent in this Parliament. When I vote for this budget, I will be voting for over £1.8 million of pupil equity funds to go directly to schools across Renfishersouth. £121,000 for Carly Bar primary and £109,000 for St Mark's primary, both in my hometown of Barhead. £104,000 for Johnston High School and the town where my constituency office is based. £141,000 for Woodlands primary and £190,000 for the Riverbury special school, both in Llynwyd, a town that was cast and scrapped by a previous Tory Government, but is now 10 years into a regeneration process begun by an SNP-led Renfisher council under my colleague Derek Mackay. Schools of the length and breadth for my Renfisher South constituency and across Scotland have and will continue to benefit from attainment funds. I have had the privilege of meeting with staff and pupils from across my constituency and have seen first-hand the benefits of PEF money through a range of interventions such as specialised staff and additional activities, which enrich and enhance the learning environment. I wish to put on record my support for the Government's continued investment in the NHS, an additional £400 million in this budget, taking total health spending to some £13.1 billion. As a son of a nurse and a NHS estate officer, both now retired, I am delighted that this Government's commitment to lifting the public sector pay cap. There is one further point that I wish to make on health spending, and that is how it is spent and the fundamental importance of how spending decisions are made in health. It is my view that one of the SNP Government's finest achievements was the delivery of the publicly-owned Queen Elizabeth university hospital, and I wish in particular to highlight the £40 million of investment over recent years in the Institute of Neurological Sciences on the Queen Elizabeth campus. That is a worldwide centre of excellence and that practises cutting-edge medicine, and I know that directly. In May of last year, my brother collapsed at his home in Barhead. He was rushed by ambulance to the RAH, where he received exemplary treatment by the accident and emergency care team and the on-call consultant who suspected a brain hemorrhage. My brother was then quickly transferred by ambulance to the Institute of Neurological Sciences at the Queen Elizabeth campus, where a silver-acknowed hemorrhage was diagnosed. Within a matter of hours, he was in surgery. Having lost a close friend to a silver-acknowed hemorrhage a few years ago, my family and I feared the worst. However, Presiding Officer, three weeks later, my brother was back in college and passing exams with flying colours. His remarkable recovery was made possible by the incredible NHS staff who treated him. Those staff, in turn, benefited from a Government that invests money in their health service and, crucially, listens to the advice of clinicians on how that money should be invested. Before concluding, I wish to reiterate my backing for this budget support for our creative sector, particularly given the reductions from the national lottery. I also wish to commend a decision to significantly increase the economy portfolio budget and continue support for small business, demonstrating that this Government is indeed one that is determined to support economic growth. All of that, however, has been achieved against the negative actions of the UK Government. Presiding Officer, the UK Government is cutting the Scottish Government's resource budget by some £500 million over the next two years. That is everyone, but the Tories seem to understand that it is the budget that pays for the day-to-day running of our public services. That also includes paying the salaries of public sector employees such as nurses, firefighters and police officers. That £500 million budget reduction in itself should also be understood in the broader context of almost a decade of austerity that is implemented by the UK Government. That is a challenge not only to the Government but to all of us in this place, which is, after all, a Parliament of minorities. I commend the Greens for their pragmatism and for rising to this challenge. It is disappointing but unsurprising that Labour chose not to engage constructively in this process. As for the Tories, they have failed ultimately to produce a ffiscally and politically coherent proposition. Tories, of course, reflexively wish to slash taxes for high earners and shrink the state. I fundamentally disagree with that approach, but it does at least represent a school of thought that can be subjected to scrutiny and debate. However, the current Tory proposition of simultaneously calling for tax cuts on the one hand and increased public spending warrants not debate but ridicule. In the end, politics comes down to values and choices. I know where does this become more apparent than in the setting of a budget. The reality is that the Tories will not admit what they cut and Labour does not have a set of proposals that would meet the regular standards of the Scottish Fiscal Commission. In contrast, the budget put forward by Derek Mackay shows a Government that puts progressive values into action. A Government that is committed to protecting and strengthening public services. A Government that supports business and economic growth. And a Government that is committed to ensuring that every child has the opportunity to succeed. That is a budget that works for my constituents in Renfrewshire South and for all of Scotland, and I look forward to supporting it this evening. Thank you very much. I call Liz Smith to be followed by Ivan McKay and Mr McKay. We are the last speaker in the open debate. I think that perhaps this stage 3 budget debate should be put in the context of the divergence in the comments that have been made by the finance secretary and those from economic commentators. Since stage 1 on 31 January, there have been wildly different interpretations of what is really happening on the ground. Summing up yesterday on the rate resolution debate, the finance secretary was trumpeting the underlying strength of the Scottish economy. Specifically, he mentioned improving productivity levels, rising output, GVA, improving median weekly earnings and foreign direct investment. However, if you look in more detail at Mr McKay's budget, as many of the economic commentators have done, there is another part of the story that relates to the overall direction of travel. All of it is set against the most recent analysis undertaken by the OECD, which clearly exposed the extent of the economic issues that Scotland faces as a result of the projected poor rates of economic growth. Despite all the spin that Mr McKay can muster, the overall tax burden of the budget will rise, hence the reason why the commentators have a rather different perspective from Mr McKay. The other context of the debate is about how well we spend our money. It is not just about tax revenues and how much we collect from our hard-pressed taxpayers, because it is a debate about the general well-being of business and industry as they plan their investment, their jobs and their trading operations. It is not just about our taxpayers and the demand side of the economy, because it is also about the supply side. Let us take a look at each in turn. On the demand side, the Scottish Retail Consortium has made it very plain that the overall increases in tax on working people will make it harder to persuade the public to spend more of their money in shops and local businesses. Many of us in this chamber, perhaps all of us, are representing constituencies with small towns and high streets that are already struggling—empty premises, threatened closures and shops that are really struggling to make ends meet. Many of those towns also include businesses with a rateable value of over £51,000, where they are facing large business supplement of 2.6 per cent in Scotland, whereas it is 1.3 per cent to its counterparts in England. Those businesses need all the help that they can get, and the public, but their SNP's tax plans are having a real hard time of it. Of course. I thank Liz Smith for taking that intervention. Will the member therefore explain why she'll opposed the support package of around £720 million in terms of non-domestic rates relief tonight? We've been very clear that this budget is not doing nearly enough to ensure that businesses are competitive and properly investing in the things that we need to have in Scotland to ensure that we sustain that economic growth. That's the reason. What is it exactly that business leaders have been saying in their warnings? They're making the point that the SNP's commitment to a higher tax Scotland makes it much harder to attract the necessary talent and the necessary investment at a time when Scotland's economy is already growing at a lower rate than the rest of the UK. The OECD and the Scottish Fiscal Commission analyses do not make for good reading. The latter is making it very clear indeed that between 2018 and 2022 the Scottish economy is not expected to grow by more than 1 per cent. For those business leaders, the introduction of the new tax band at 21 per cent on incomes between £24,000 and £43,430 is unwelcome, since it means that despite all the rhetoric from Mr Mackay, the burden of tax in Scotland will be greater than it is in the rest of the UK. That widening of that tax gap is a serious issue for them, quite rightly so. It's that perception that matters, as well as the reality. We know that, from the Barclay review, when the N28 rates relief allios that the cabinet secretary proposed, he was going to go ahead with that until he felt the full force of the public and the fact that that was not going to be acceptable. Jenny Marra is not in the chamber just now, but she makes a very good point about what the futures are for some of the new allios. If at any stage we are going to put in jeopardy any of those new projects, we have to have a serious look at what the implications are for that investment and on building for our future, particularly for young people in this year of young people, which is very important. Whilst on the Barclay review, cabinet secretary, can I repeat my plea that you really have to think carefully about the implications of your tax plans on nursery provision, particularly in light of what we saw last week from the Accounts Commission report and, indeed, yesterday from fair funding for our kids, who are talking a lot about the accessibility of nursery places. It is not just about the provision of more places, but it is about whether they can actually be accessed. The Scottish Government seems to think that it is sensible to pursue plans that will allow private profit-making nurseries to enjoy 100 per cent of rates relief, but not the nurseries that are charitable and not for profit and which help out local authorities to deliver that greater flexibility in places in the nurseries. That does not make any sense. I do not think that it makes any sense to this chamber and it certainly does not make any sense to parents. The long and short, cabinet secretary, is that the SNP's inability to sustain this budget because it does not have the necessary economic growth behind it. That is a message that you have been told time and time again, not just from the Conservatives but from business in Scotland. It is no use at all for the finance ministers to say that Brexit is to blame for all of this. It is not, because Brexit is happening to the rest of the UK. This debate is about the SNP's stewardship of the economy. Just about every economic forecaster is telling Mr Mackay that he is making huge errors of judgment. Worse still, he is harming the ability of Scotland to be the most competitive and most successful part of the UK, which is exactly why the Scottish Conservatives will not be supporting this budget. As the series of debates on this year's Scottish budget draws to a close, after what seems like an eternity, it is perhaps time to take stock of where we are. We have heard much in contributions today and yesterday's deliberations on the rates resolution and in earlier budget debates on the details of the Government's spending tax proposals. How much extra has been spent on the various portfolios? How much has been raised and where from? We have had alternative proposals being advanced, different economic theories and varying perspectives on the impacts of tax and spend. Some of that has to be said more grounded in reality than others. The Laffer curve in all its manifestations has had a good airing and is about to be put safely back in its box for a period of rest and recuperation and preparation for next year's budget cycle. We have seen tax, income elasticity and differential marginal propensity to consume emerge under the scene as new contenders for the economic jargon of choice award. Interest groups and respected independent bodies have been quoted endlessly. The full-alphabet soup of trade bodies, third sector organisations and think tanks have been deployed to support arguments on all sides. The Fraser of Allander, in particular, must be said to a scenic stock rise yet again, being quoted against itself from opposite sides of the chamber at the same time on more than one occasion. The intense heat generated by the debate has even managed to generate enough free energy to split that most compact political entity of them all, the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Maybe it is time to reflect on the wider politics of all that. What is the perspective of those outside the bubble, the pairs of tax, the consumers of services? What do the women and men in the street take away from their deliberations over recent weeks? Taxpayers at different levels of income may or may not notice a shift in their take-home pay. In most cases, up and some down, they will understand that the income tax system in Scotland is now different from that down south. They will also understand better that other taxes are different, too. The Garethman council tax levels north and south of the border continue to widen in their favour. When he next sees the man and woman in the street in his constituency, will he tell them that he broke his pledge not to raise tax? Ivan McKee Will he tell them that the vast majority of people in my constituency are going to see a tax reduction as a consequence of this budget? The tax changes in the budget have been carefully tailored to minimise the chances of anyone altering their tax affairs or moving house to save that extra penny in the pound, especially when the higher council tax on their new house down south would wipe out any income tax gain. Future analysis by the Scottish Fiscal Commission will attempt to quantify the value of tax loss due to behavioural change, but I expect that it will be minimal. Public sector workers will see the different approach to the way in which the pay cap has been handled by different Governments across the UK. A narrative that business investors will be driven away by a penny in the pound has, I believe, been overplayed. I know from my own experience that the factors that determine business investment decisions are wide and varied, but that levels of personal income tax come down low down that list far behind infrastructure, skills availability, business taxes and government support. The debate has also perhaps caused taxpayers to reflect on what they get for their money, services that are free north of the border because money down south has been highlighted once more. The quality of those public services has been contrasted with provisions across the rest of the UK. Those who use our health services and those who work in them increasingly hear of the problems of setting the services in England and Wales and understand that the service in Scotland is different. The concept of getting what you pay for or, in more technical terms, negative price elasticity of demand is possibly the most common refrain in the public debate over past days. People feel instinctively comfortable with that concept, most are willing to pay more to get more. The challenge, of course, for our public services is to ensure that trust is not mistreated, that perceived value is indeed delivered for the extra spend, to continue to shift the focus to preventative spend, to increasingly focus on outcomes and not just on inputs in line with the principles of the Christie commission. I would suggest that when the dust settles, we will see a stronger Scottish Parliament. A Parliament taking is the SCDI putting a mature, progressive and significant approach to deploying its new tax powers. I expect that the people of Scotland will see that and will understand that a major step has been taken in the direction of making this place yet more relevant to their daily lives. The perception that this place now matters more, not just in the service delivery portfolios but also in relation to take-home pay, has been reinforced. The understanding that Scotland is different has also been reinforced. We are able to take a distinctively Scottish approach to how we fund our public services and how we raise that money to pay for them. In conclusion, for the last year's budget, which was historic with new powers being available for the first time, this year's budget has been even more significant as it shows that the Parliament is starting to use those powers. Even more importantly, it is yet another significant step on the road to creating a Parliament with all the powers needed to run all aspects of our country and our economy. The cabinet secretary opened by saying that the budget is putting progressive values into action. If only it was true, because despite all the back slapping that we have seen during this debate, the budget fails to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. It does not raise enough revenue and it feels every one of Scottish Labour's five budget tests. It does not halt austerity, it will not stop the growth of poverty, it does not redistribute power or wealth and it will not grow our economy in the interests of the many, not the few. The alternative plan to Scottish Labour put forward passes every one of those tests. I am sorry that Patrick Harvie feels that he did not have enough time to consider them, but we would raise almost £1 billion of extra stimulus for the Scottish economy, meaning that we can. Bruce Crawford asked the chamber to consider the type of nation that we want to be. We have a prospectus that would save lifeline local services, would fund a pay rise for public sector workers, would put money in the pockets of working families, would top up child benefit by £5 per week and would deliver extra spending for the national health service. Our costed alternative is proof of what a difference this Parliament could make if only the SNP had the political will to make the choices for real progressive change rather than continue to tinker around the edges. Ruth Maguire made some important points about the scandalous levels of child poverty, but it is a pity that she did not take the intervention to agree with the trade unions and charities in her constituency and across Scotland that child benefit, the top-up that we propose, would lift 30,000 children out of poverty immediately. Our alternative tax plans would raise more than £540 million more than the current proposals in the budget, while ensuring that the riches pay their fair share and that 70 per cent of taxpayers would not pay a penny more. Our plans, just like the SNP, ensure that those earning up to £33,000 will not pay a penny more in tax than they do just now. However, the difference is that, unlike the SNP, our plans ask the very riches in our society to pay their fair share by dropping the threshold for the 45-pinch rate to 60,000 and introducing a new 50p rate for those earning over 100,000. Our proposals would raise vital money for public services. I will take Miles Briggs. Miles Briggs, please. Intervention. It is now widely accepted that Labour's proposal of a 50p tax rate would actually lose money. Can the member confirm that she would like to support and the party supports a policy that would lose money to the Scottish taxes? Monica Lennon. I do not accept that. There is no evidence for that, but there is a shared perception between the SNP front bench and the Tory back bench. Simply, this is about progressive taxation. We are not embarrassed to be asking those who can afford to pay a bit more to do so, something that the SNP used to believe in. Despite manifesto, after manifesto promise from the SNP supporting and agreeing that we should have a 50p rate of tax, the Government is now sheepish when it comes to explaining why it has been that promise. Our 50p tax rate for 100,000-pound earners means that someone on 150 grand would be paying £142 more per week in income tax. The SNP simply asked them to pay £17 more, so the bottom line is that the SNP's tax plans are timids and it is not going to solve austerity. It is essential that our additional stimulus package is the extra funding for local government, which has been unfairly squeezed year after year of budget negotiations since 2011. COSLA has stated that local authorities need £545 million to protect lifeline services, and that is what our funding package is all about. Cuts to local services means cuts to vital local services, and that is what has an impact on people in their everyday lives. Colin Smyth spoke about the dilemma facing local councillers of all political parties, and Jenny Marra raised the importance of preventative spending. I know that a lot of people in the chamber agree with that, but they are looking another way when it is being raised. The Scottish Government claims that councils are getting a fair deal, something that we have heard time and time again. However, the cabinet secretary is failing to take responsibility to explain why nine out of 10 austerity job losses have come from local councils. Indeed, 28,000—and it is not a scaremongering, cabinet secretary—is a fact that 28,000 local government posts have been cut in the past seven years. What I disgrace. It has to be brief, cabinet secretary. Simply why Monica Lennon will oppose the real-terms increase going to local government as a consequence of this budget? Monica Lennon? I thought that the cabinet secretary was going to maybe correct his earlier misleading apartment when he said that 28,000 cuts to local jobs were scaremongering, but we are a bit putting money into public so that he is not taking it out. Presiding Officer, I have taken a couple of interventions. I am not sure how much time I have left. Did it make high? It does not easily take our word for it. I wonder if he paid attention to the recent Unison and Jimmy Reeds Foundation report on local government, because it states that, if local government continues to face the same level of grant reduction, there are extremely difficult choices ahead. I will shake your head, but this is what it says. As it stands, the level and speed of cuts are not sustainable in the long term. While the demand for services will continue to grow, the fallen budget is placing increasing pressure on local government and its staff. Those hit harders by the cuts are the poorest groups in local communities who are and will continue to be unable to cope with service reduction or the complete withdrawal of services. The quote continues, that local authorities are facing the risk where they will be unable to meet their statutory duties and unable to deliver critical services to their poorest and most vulnerable citizens. We simply cannot afford to go on like this, so we can and must make different choices. We have the powers to do so, yet, despite all the rhetoric, when the opportunity to use those powers is in front of them, this Government is running scared. Declining to introduce a 50p rate for the highest earners, despite promising that election after election, refusing to use the powers that they are good for to top up benefits like child benefit, which would lift 30,000 children out of poverty. Our plans show that there are costly alternatives that can be made and that would make a real difference to working-class families across the country. That budget does not raise enough revenue to stop austerity or fund our public services. That is why our plans to provide a near £1 billion stimulus package for the economy, by contrast, deliver the real change that is needed. Our plans would produce a budget that works in the interests of the many, not the privileged few. Pay more, get less—that is the message of today's budget. This is a budget that puts up taxes despite the fact that the Scottish Government's block grant is going up this year. This is a budget that increases our rates of income tax despite the SNP promising more than 50 times in the last two years, not to do that. This is a budget that will do nothing for consumers and that will damage Scottish business, damage that could take years to repair according to the Scottish chambers of commerce. Perhaps most seriously of all, this is a budget that does nothing to address the fundamental problem with the Scottish economy, chronic low growth relative to the rest of the UK—the legacy of the SNP's decade-long mismanagement of the Scottish economy. Time after time this afternoon, we have heard SNP speeches that fail even to mention economic growth. That shows how unfit to govern they have become. Growth is not an economic buzzword—a piece of jargon that we can choose to take or leave as we like. Growth is central. It goes to the core of how we fund our public services, those world-class public services that we all rightly demand. Grow the economy and you increase economic activity. Increase economic activity and you grow the tax revenues that accrue to the Government. Boost tax revenues and there is more public money to invest in front-line services. It is not complicated, but it does seem to be beyond this, cabinet secretary. That budget does not do any of us. That budget does the opposite. That budget takes money out of the hands and pockets of families, workers and consumers. That budget makes it more expensive to do business in Scotland by making Scotland the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom, where everyone earning more than £26,000 a year will pay more tax. By doing this, the cabinet secretary is inhibiting growth, not enabling it. He is saying to hard-working families, do not strive for your family, put your feet up, because if you aspire to succeed, he will just tax your aspiration and then when he is done with that, he will tax your success too. He is saying to Scottish business, do not invest here. Your confidence is low, he will keep it low. Your taxes are too high, too bad. For here are the facts, Presiding Officer. Under the SNP, Scotland has the highest business rates in Europe. Under the SNP, business confidence is at a near record low, 20 points lower than in the UK. Under the SNP, Scotland's rate of business growth is slower than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and business investment in Scotland is down. Pay more, get less. That is Nicola Sturgeon's dismal economic legacy. Presiding Officer, I want to say something about the process and the budget process, which was mentioned, I think, importantly in a couple of the opening speeches earlier this afternoon, including by Patrick Harvey and by Murdo Fraser. The cannot be effective parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's budget proposals unless those proposals are presented in as open and transparent a manner as possible. Yet again, Presiding Officer, this did not happen this year. Between the publication of the draft budget, presented to Parliament in December and stage 1 of the budget bill fortnight ago, Derek Mackay found an additional £160 million of public spending, this year's price for the Greens' support. The annual dance between Mr Mackay and Mr Harvey, in which the Cabinet Secretary routinely manages to find a nine-figure sum that he somehow failed to account for in his draft budget, is frankly one of the most unedifying spectacles in the parliamentary calendar. John Swinney. I am grateful to Mr Tomkins for giving way. I wonder if he would enlighten Parliament what is the difference between the process that Mr Mackay has gone through with the Greens in finding money to afford a final stage of a budget and the process that I went through with the Conservatives to do exactly the same in the past. The difference is that, when the Conservatives were working with the SNP, we got results. When the Greens were working with the SNP, all we do is push taxes up even higher and suppress the growth of the Scottish economy that we need. Presiding Officer, the process that I have just described is not conducive to a good government. No, no, settle down now. The process is not conducive to a good government. It is not in the public interest, it bypasses effective parliamentary scrutiny and it does nothing to diminish the SNP's growing reputation for preferring secrecy to open government, murky backroom deals to transparent policymaking. Presiding Officer, this Parliament deserves better than that. As we move next year to a new process of budget scrutiny, I hope that both Government and Parliament will learn the lessons of and not repeat the mistakes of the frankly begrade and substandard process that we have had to endure again this year. The third theme that has emerged from this afternoon's debate is that this is a budget of betrayal. This budget is a clear and unambiguous breach of trust. Why? Because two thirds of Scots voted in 2016 for parties that promised not to raise taxes in this parliamentary session. Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister, said that it is not right to increase income tax for those who are on the basic rate. Again, Nicola Sturgeon said, I have been very clear that the government will not increase income tax. John Swinney said the same as did Derek Mackay. Indeed, in the last two years, the SNP promised not to raise the basic rate 53 times, 53 broken promises. Today, the news is grim not only for those who are once fooled by the credibility of the SNP's false election promises. Today, the news is grim for Scottish workers. Today's figures show that employment is down in Scotland and that the employment rate is lower in Scotland than in the UK as a whole. Today, the news is grim also for the unemployed. Unemployment is up in Scotland and the unemployment rate is now higher than it is in the UK as a whole. This is the SNP's record and their budget today will do nothing to turn this lousy record around. Pay more, get less. That is the message from this budget and Parliament should vote it down. Derek Mackay, to close to the cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This, of course, was a very significant debate but for politicians in the chamber, I think that the highlight must have been watching Mr Swinney bust Adam Tomkins bubble in terms of the summing up showing his rhetoric to be empty and his numbers to be fiscal fantasy that has come from the Conservatives. When I asked who I would choose—I am not going to lower the level of debate to Neil Findlay, no thank you—too much to get through, too many important things to say, but when I asked who I would choose— Cabinet secretary, can I just caution against personal remarks? Thank you. Who I—then I will talk about political parties, Presiding Officer—who I would rather align myself with. I have to say when it comes to budget deals, yes, I do feel closer to the Scottish Green Party than I do the DUP, so I have no problem in finding a consensus around progressive and positive politics. The Labour Party may have considered them themselves a progressive party at one point, but now they are reduced simply to being an anti-SNP party in this chamber. I return to some of the consensus that came through the programme for government. Areas such as abolishing social care charges for more people, expanding free sanitary products, targeting resources to post-industrial Scotland, a graduate entrepreneurial challenge, investing in oil and gas decommissioning, electrifying road transport, expanding our trade envoy network, supporting breastfeeding funding, more air quality in low emission zones and in creation of a national investment bank? The reason I have identified those PFG commitments is that the budget funds those commitments and much more—not widely debated this afternoon, but that is the kind of things that the Opposition across the chamber has been asking this Government to do. That plus all the other investments are in our 1.2 additional resources in the Scottish Government's budget to be opposed by the Labour Party and the Conservative Party this evening. I am happy to spend resources, but not a clue as to how to fairly and competently raise the necessary resources to make those investments. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. Is it not a reasonable case that, over the coming months and years, before we get to this process next year, we also strike a balance between how local councils not only spend but raise the money that they need? Should we not be setting a clear expectation that councils have the ability to raise a significant proportion of the revenue that they will need for future years to provide their local services? As I have said before, I am always open to discussion, but the reality is that this budget will give a real-terms increase to the resources of local government before they even consider using their council tax power. Briefly, on the economic model of the whole of the United Kingdom, it is clear that the evidence tells us that the UK Government's economic model is centred on London and the south-east of England. It is no surprise that other parts of the UK, including Scotland, are at a disadvantage position because of that economic model. The UK Government cannot walk away from its responsibilities and macroeconomic policy. The Tories cannot abdicate their responsibilities in proper fiscal policy. They cannot raise less and spend more. When they are challenged on making savings, the Conservatives can only point to things such as stopping the baby box as the answer to the question as to how they would find half a billion pounds to fund tax cuts for the richest businesses, people and homeowners in society. It is no good of Murdo Fraser to say that, if only he was in charge, I would then have a Scottish fiscal commission report that says that I would have £16 billion more to invest in Scotland's economy. When I found extra resources for the Scottish budget, it is no good for Murdo simply to cry wolf. I have set out a clear and transparent process and if only the other opposition parties could engage constructively in that process. In terms of the question around listening to business, many business organisations have welcomed much of the budget. In terms of small business bonus, which is welcomed by the FSB, of course it is, but it has said further that the introduction of a new business accelerator relief is a clever move that deserves plaudits. SIPFA, of course, is a very considered opinion on public sector funding, has said that it is welcome news that Scottish public services will receive more funding, as without extra resources, the financial resilience of many services would inevitably be put into question. Liz Cameron from the chambers of commerce has said that we welcome much of the substance of Mr Mackay's announcements in terms of the budget. In particular, we appreciate his willingness to listen to the voice of business. I could go on to the many quotes that welcome the investments that this Government will make in terms of the positives in the budget. Even the SRC, much quoted by the Tory party, has said that the decision on income tax to protect workers on low and modest earnings is exactly right. Or the SCDI who said that this is a progressive, mature and significant use of Scotland's tax powers. There is much support for the budget, including from the public who have backed our tax plans by two to one. James Kelly has presented an alternative that, frankly, is not competent and is not coherent. The tax proposals are cut in half in terms of behavioural impacts, in terms of the other elements of the budget. It requires legislation. When asked when the Labour Party would present its alternative budget, it now transpires in terms of the detail. It will come after stage 3 of the Scottish budget, a preposterous position from the Labour Party, showing that it has no credibility whatsoever. In working with the Green Party, we have produced a budget that is able to find the consensus to invest in our public services and lift the public sector pay cap in Scotland. James Kelly did the arithmetic on the tax plans in terms of income tax. He said that an MSP's tax would increase by only £26. James Kelly is wrong. I advise members not to seek their tax return advice from James Kelly because he is wrong to the tune of 1,300 per cent. That is how inaccurate James Kelly was on the figures in relation to just an MSP's income tax proposition. Why should we trust the Labour Party on the overall budget? In truth, what the budget does is a very serious budget. It uses Scotland's devolved powers responsibly in a fair way. It protects the students of Scotland from tuition fees. It expands childcare, which is good for children and good for the economy. It protects universal support around poverty and inequality, delivering free school meals to P1 to P3 children. It ensures that the L does not have to pay prescription charges, and it supports the continuation of free eye exams. The NHS, of course, is a very precious service, and it is indeed the largest beneficiary of the budget. It also protects those entitlements that give us the best deal anywhere in the UK. It will help to build 50,000 new affordable homes. It will help to expand digital investing over £600 million, with new interventions on homelessness and child poverty. Real terms increases for the NHS, for higher education, for further education, for police and fire transformation as well. Those are the kind of commitments that I know command the support of the Scottish people. Bruce Crawford was right when he said that this budget puts the resources in place that speaks to the vision of what we want this country to be. It delivers on the commitments that were made by the First Minister in the programme for government. It prevents the negatives that have come from Westminster austerity, turning real terms reduction in resource into growth. It is creating a more equal society, tackling inequality and growing our economy. As we approach the completion of stage 3, we have still got the non-domestic rates element to go through, as well as the local government finance order. It is not quite over yet, but as we complete the legal stages of the Scottish budget, we have an opportunity to deliver that divergence, to make Scotland for the majority the lowest-tax part of the UK, but crucially the fairest tax part of the UK. Brexit is a huge challenge to the UK's economy and a huge challenge to Scotland's economy. Businesses said to me that that was much greater concern than even the perceptions that is propagated by the Tories around tax. We deliver stimulus, sustainability and a stronger society, respecting the powers and using them wisely with an evidence base to restructure tax to build a better and fairer country. I asked the Parliament to consider all of this and the £40 billion that is allocated in the spending plans in this budget. I might not be a Morrissey fan, but the old bands back together better together or back together. I am more of a proclaimers kind of guy, and that is why I visited Leith yesterday. A GP surgery—there was indeed sunshine in Leith at the Leith GP surgery—and the NHS is the biggest beneficiaries of this budget. I commend this budget to the people of Scotland because I know that it commands the support of the Scottish people, and I hope that it commands the support of this chamber this evening. That concludes our debate on the budget bill. The next item of business is consideration of four business motions. Motion 10579 on revised business programme for tomorrow, motion 10562 setting out a business programme and motions 10563 and 10564 on stage 1 and stage 2 timetables. I would ask any member who objects to either of those motions to say so now by calling Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motions on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. No one has asked to speak against the motions, so the question is that we agree motions 10579 and 10562 to 10564. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of three parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick and half the bureau to move motion 10565 in designation of a lead committee and motions 10566 and 10567 on approval of SSIs. We come now to decision time. The first question is that motion 1058 in the name of Derek Mackay on stage 3 of the budget Scotland number 2 bill be agreed. Because this is a stage 3, we will move straight to division, so members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 1058 in the name of Derek Mackay is yes 70, no 56, there were no abstentions, the motion is agreed and the budget Scotland number 2 bill is passed. I propose to ask a single question on three parliamentary bureau motions. Does anyone object? Good. The question is that motions 10565 to 10567 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will move now to members' business in the name of Neil Findlay on St John's children's ward. We will just take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.